what if you don't want to become an endowed member?

[dahlia]

I realize that one of our goals as LDS is to go to the temple. But what if, at least for now, you don't want to become endowed? Can you still get baptized? Should you get baptized? And, if you shouldn't get baptized, how long will wards let you go to church and attend activities if you aren't a baptized member? 

In most religions, no one would care what you did after baptism, but you and I both know that the missionaries, your HT, your VT, and the bishop will not stop asking why you aren't pursuing becoming temple worthy, so there seems to be no escape from having to be up front with this at some point after baptism. I could be wrong. 

Thoughts?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, dahlia said:

I realize that one of our goals as LDS is to go to the temple. But what if, at least for now, you don't want to become endowed? Can you still get baptized? Should you get baptized? And, if you shouldn't get baptized, how long will wards let you go to church and attend activities if you aren't a baptized member? 

In most religions, no one would care what you did after baptism, but you and I both know that the missionaries, your HT, your VT, and the bishop will not stop asking why you aren't pursuing becoming temple worthy, so there seems to be no escape from having to be up front with this at some point after baptism. I could be wrong. 

Thoughts?

There is no limit.

[dahlia]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There is no limit.

Huh? No limit on what? The number of times the bishop can bug you about not going to the temple? 

[Guest]

Well, we certainly wouldn't ban someone from church or activities for not wanting to get baptized.  I have seen people attend church for years without getting baptized.  This is as it should be... we offer love and support unconditionally, and the invitation is always there to get baptized and take the next step towards the Celestial Kingdom.

As far as getting baptized but not wanting to go to the temple, I can't help but to wonder why someone would not want to go to the temple? I mean, I imagine being baptized is better than not being baptized in such a case, but it baffles me that one would want to take the step of being baptized and then would want to stop there and not go all the way to the temple, especially since the temple unlocks all the really cool stuff about the gospel (e.g., eternal marriage).  That's like buying a Playstation 4 and using it only to play Atari 2600 emulators.

Edited November 29, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[dahlia]

Let's just say that the whole garment thing kinda freaks out the people I have in mind. Think of that what you will.

[Anddenex]

35 minutes ago, dahlia said:

I realize that one of our goals as LDS is to go to the temple. But what if, at least for now, you don't want to become endowed? Can you still get baptized? Should you get baptized? And, if you shouldn't get baptized, how long will wards let you go to church and attend activities if you aren't a baptized member? 

In most religions, no one would care what you did after baptism, but you and I both know that the missionaries, your HT, your VT, and the bishop will not stop asking why you aren't pursuing becoming temple worthy, so there seems to be no escape from having to be up front with this at some point after baptism. I could be wrong. 

Thoughts?

What if, at least for now, you don't want to become endowed?

Then you don't become an endowed member. The primary doctrine of the gospel is agency. If people want to choose not to become endowed then that is really choice; although, a choice I would have a hard time understanding why. I don't want to leave my exaltation up to chance. I want to make sure I have been able to perform all the saving ordinances for myself and then live up to those (knowing I will fall short and I am thankful for my Jesus).

Can you still get baptized? Yes.

Should you get baptized? Yes. Some people are not yet ready for the temple but are ready for baptism. I would encourage people to be baptized and then work with them toward temple attendance.

And, if you shouldn't get baptized, how long will wards let you go to church and attend activities if you aren't a baptized member? 

I am confused by this sentence, as I am not sure if you meant to say "if you shouldn't get [endowed]" instead of "baptized." The Church will still work with people until they are baptized, or until the individual says, "Stop asking me about baptism"; however, I would have a hard time understanding why a person wouldn't want to get baptized if they know the Church is true. Why miss out on promised blessings?

If you were meaning endowed, then there is no limit to how long you can go to church and attend activities, and I would recommend that the individual keep coming, and hopefully they are individuals that are willing to serve

A good example would be Elder Bednar's father. His talk was wonderful regarding his father who he ended up baptizing in his 70s if I remember. He came to church. He held callings. People even thought he was a member because he participated.

So there seems to be no escape from having to be up front with this at some point after baptism.

True! There is no end for those who have received promised blessings to not want that for others -- this is love! As long as they don't give up, I won't give up. I don't think Elder Bednar stopped talking with his father.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Anddenex
Live to leave

[Anddenex]

12 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Let's just say that the whole garment thing kinda freaks out the people I have in mind. Think of that what you will.

If they wear underwear and a t-shirt, then they should be just fine. The only difference is that now the underwear and t-shirt have religious meaning. I remember I had similar thoughts before I was endowed, "Yuck, wearing garments." Then after putting them on, it was no different than my boxers and t-shirt I wore. Nothing changed, but now my underwear were "Jesus Jamas" or at least that is what people told me they were on my mission.

 

[Jane_Doe]

For starters, I will admit that I was baptized and (mostly) active for 22 years before going to the temple.  A couple of my bishops asked if I would like to go, but none pushed.  The current bishop I have when I did finally go never asked me about it (we had actually never talked at all before I signed up for an interview).

47 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Can you still get baptized?

Yes.

47 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Should you get baptized?

Yes.

47 minutes ago, dahlia said:

And, if you shouldn't get baptized, how long will wards let you go to church and attend activities if you aren't a baptized member? 

Till you die.  And then you're just assigned to different jurisdiction. 

47 minutes ago, dahlia said:

In most religions, no one would care what you did after baptism

Actually, not true.  Catholicism, for example, has 6 other religious ceremonies for a person partake in, both once in a life time and repeatedly every week.  Other faiths do care about the choice/path you take after baptism.

47 minutes ago, dahlia said:

but you and I both know that the missionaries, your HT, your VT, and the bishop will not stop asking why you aren't pursuing becoming temple worthy

Actually no (at least in my experience).  Most people just sort of assumed I was endowed.  If someone did know, vast majority didn't say anything.  The few that did ask, I politely told them I was taking my growth at my pace directed by Heavenly Father.  On the rare occasion soon bugged me about it more than once, I told them to bug off (in a mostly polite way).

47 minutes ago, dahlia said:

 so there seems to be no escape from having to be up front with this at some point after baptism. I could be wrong. 

Up sort about the offer and path?  Yes, we're very up front about that.

But is someone doesn't want to, that is their choice and they just have to declare it so.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[priesthoodpower]

Mormons are just like any other people in this world that have assignments and tasks to perform. The Bishop and ward council have statistical goals they are shooting for...# of baptisms per month, #of re-activations, #of endowed members. If you are a prime candidate to receive endowment the leaders will push you toward that goal because they themselves have a numbers goal to reach. Its a catch 22, they really want you to receive those blessings but they are also trying to meet their statistical goals too. Im not knocking the system because I really do believe that service on all levels is a key component to our salvation. 

The big secret that I have learned while sitting in ward council meetings is that if you do not want to be on the councils list as a "project" then you need to approach Bishop and tell him not to put you on any list (aka prospective endowed members). When I was in those meetings I sat and felt sorry for one of my friends that was on the list under "re-activation familys", as a close friend of his I knew how he felt about church but it was not my job to tell the Bishop, week after week and for months the leaders would attempt to call and visit their home and if there was contact my friend couldn't or didn't understand how to be straight forward, maybe he was afraid to offend. Poor guy, I think he is still on the list to this day, after two years.

On the other hand I had another friend in elders quorum that was sharp as a whistle, very intellegint and articulate in the gospel. I didn't see him for over 6 months its as if he dissapeared off the face of the earth. In ward council meeting I asked Bishop about this brother and Bishops reply was "I sat down with him a while back, he's doing good",<end of story><change subject> lol

Edited November 29, 2016 by priesthoodpower

[dahlia]

Thanks for all of the responses. I would hate to be someone's 'project.' I was upfront with my RS president and the bishop about not wanting to do VT or get VT for awhile. I enjoy meeting my VTs at church and one of them is so good about emailing me a lesson and keeping up with me. That's fine. I just can't handle the visiting now. I told the bishop that I hadn't lost my testimony, but I needed a break. If I hadn't said something, I could see turning into a project and then getting upset with people constantly bothering me. This way, they know where I stand and seemingly are OK with it.

Not sure I like that investigators, etc. are part of someone's quota. Yeah, don't like that at all.

[Jane_Doe]

21 minutes ago, dahlia said:

I was upfront with my RS president and the bishop about not wanting to do VT or get VT for awhile. I enjoy meeting my VTs at church and one of them is so good about emailing me a lesson and keeping up with me. That's fine. I just can't handle the visiting now.

That's perfectly ok.  I have a VT'ee who likewise doesn't wanted visited.  Her request for a "visit" is a simple "how are you?" at church.  So I did my VTing this Sunday: between SS and RS I said "hey how you doing?  Happy belated birthday!"  She smiled and said "thank you".  And that 20 seconds was the entirety of our visit.

21 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Not sure I like that investigators, etc. are part of someone's quota. Yeah, don't like that at all.

It's supposed to be goals, to keep people motivated.  It is not good when a "goal to motivate" becomes a quota.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

3 hours ago, dahlia said:

Huh? No limit on what? The number of times the bishop can bug you about not going to the temple? 

All of it.

No limit to how long you can attend church without getting baptized.

No limit to how long you can be baptized without getting your endowments.

No limit to how long you can mess up and still gain forgiveness.

No limit to how many callings you can be given (not all at once).

No limit to how many times the bishop can bug you about baptism, callings, repentance, or endowments.

No limit to how many times you can go to the temple without getting sealed.

You asked many questions.  They all had the same answer: No limit.

[priesthoodpower]

2 hours ago, dahlia said:

Not sure I like that investigators, etc. are part of someone's quota. Yeah, don't like that at all.

From what I know to be true, its more about sharing the eternal blessings of the gospel that drive the leaders and members, not the numbers. The quotas are just numbers that give them measurable results. As a matter of fact the numbers are prayed for and received by inspiration. For example when I was a missionary we prayed and asked God how many people in our area were ready to receive baptism that month. Sometimes we felt inspired to write down 1 or 2, sometimes we felt 12 people were "ripe" ready to be found. There is no monetary compensation or fame for performance within the LDS church. Like Anddenex mentioned, its all out of Love. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Related to the "project" idea.  My daughter is the Laurel Class president.  She and a friend are the only two active in her class, so there is a lot of pressure from the leaders for her to "fellowship" the other girls, a couple of whom come to Sacrament meeting, but not Young Womens.  My daughter is feeling frustrated because she says, "It's fake, they know it's fake.  So they say 'I'll come.' And then they don't."  

I told her she's right.  She is.  No one wants to be a "project".  My advice to her was stop trying to reactive these girls, and try just to be kind and loving toward them.  Notice something about them that you can compliment, "Hey love your new hair style."  Pay attention to anything you might have in common.  For example, they mention on Facebook that they went to a movie you also like.  Ask, "How did you like _______? I love that movie!"  Be a friend, but don't push.  Be genuine.  Let them know you care about them as a person, whether they come to church or not.  

If they are inclined to return, true friendship will hasten the process more than fake fellowshipping.  

[Bad Karma]

9 hours ago, dahlia said:

I realize that one of our goals as LDS is to go to the temple. But what if, at least for now, you don't want to become endowed? Can you still get baptized? Should you get baptized? And, if you shouldn't get baptized, how long will wards let you go to church and attend activities if you aren't a baptized member? 

In most religions, no one would care what you did after baptism, but you and I both know that the missionaries, your HT, your VT, and the bishop will not stop asking why you aren't pursuing becoming temple worthy, so there seems to be no escape from having to be up front with this at some point after baptism. I could be wrong. 

Thoughts?

I was baptized in 1996, Ordained an Elder in 2005, Endowed in 2005, quite some time before I was baptized before I was endowed. It was a personal decision for me, I wasn't in any hurry. I found myself again 6 years later finally meeting someone I would WANT to not just be married to, but sealed to.  Everything in God's time, sometimes and for some people, these things are fast, sometimes these things are slower. At whatever operational tempo, these things are beautiful. 

 

Charge forward. 

[priesthoodpower]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

If they are inclined to return, true friendship will hasten the process more than fake fellowshipping.  

Here is something to think about...why is it that at work, when you dont like your co-workers or boss you still need to be polite and interact with them, its called being cordial and its a very normal thing. At church its called fake fellowshipping and its a bad thing.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Here is something to think about...why is it that at work, when you dont like your co-workers or boss you still need to be polite and interact with them, its called being cordial and its a very normal thing. At church its called fake fellowshipping and its a bad thing.

There is a difference between being civil and fake fellowshipping.  If you want to compare fake fellowshipping to work, it would be sort of like "kissing up" to someone to get a favor or whatever. Often it's not genuine.  That's the trouble.  

What i suggested to my daughter was more on the lines of being civil and friendly.  No problem.  What feels fake is when you are nice to someone only because you have an agenda....i.e. my daughter inviting the girls to YW because she is pressured to do do, even though she knows they won't come, and they don't.  It's like everyone is going through the motions of some elaborate emotional dance.  

What I'm saying is be genuine.  Be a friend whether that person comes to church (or Young Women's) or not.  Take, for example, the friend you mentioned...wouldn't it have been better for someone to try to really get to know him rather than just extend unwanted invitations to church?  I think this is what Christ would have us do...be real friends, not just messengers who extend invitations, but true friends. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

There is a difference between being civil and fake fellowshipping.  If you want to compare fake fellowshipping to work, it would be sort of like "kissing up" to someone to get a favor or whatever. Often it's not genuine.  That's the trouble.

So, what's the difference between being civil solely for the purpose of getting people to do their jobs (i.e. live up to their potential professionally) and being civil solely for the purpose of encouraging people to live up to their potential spiritually?

I work with people who are morally offensive to work with.  If I had my druthers, I'd stay away from them.  But because I'm forced to interact with them...

And I reject the notion that there is any such thing as "fake fellowship".  Does anyone really put forth such effort for personal gain? No.  There is no "favor" to be had.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Guest

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, what's the difference between being civil solely for the purpose of getting people to do their jobs (i.e. live up to their potential professionally) and being civil solely for the purpose of encouraging people to live up to their potential spiritually

All I'm saying is that people will respond better to others who are genuine and authentic, than to fakery.  At work people have to be civil to one another and do their jobs.  The other guy is likely not doing his job because you are civil, he's doing it because he wants to keep the paycheck coming.  A fake smile is not enough to keep someone coming to church.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

All I'm saying is that people will respond better to others who are genuine and authentic, than to fakery.  At work people have to be civil to one another and do their jobs.  The other guy is likely not doing his job because you are civil, he's doing it because he wants to keep the paycheck coming.  A fake smile is not enough to keep someone coming to church.  

First, I updated my last post that may address this.  Who says it's fake?

Second, no.  He's not doing the work because he wants the paycheck.  He's pretty much guaranteed his employment for quite a while.  He'd have to commit a felony while at work with a dozen witnesses in order to get fired.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

No updating in the middle of a conversation.  I said so.   Seriously, it makes things rather confusing. 

I really don't understand what the issue is here. I shared an experience I had with my daughter....an approach that I feel in the long run will be more effective in potentially getting the less active girls to return.  But for some reason, I'm getting push back from you.  Help me understand why this bothers you and then perhaps I can see where our communication is failing. 

About the work situation...that may be at your job, but it isn't at mine.  Or at my husband's previous employer.   

Edited November 29, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I told her she's right.  She is.  No one wants to be a "project".  My advice to her was stop trying to reactive these girls, and try just to be kind and loving toward them.  Notice something about them that you can compliment, "Hey love your new hair style."  Pay attention to anything you might have in common.  For example, they mention on Facebook that they went to a movie you also like.  Ask, "How did you like _______? I love that movie!"  Be a friend, but don't push.  Be genuine.  Let them know you care about them as a person, whether they come to church or not.  

 

I love this. You are one hundred percent correct and so is your daughter. 

[Guest MormonGator]

14 hours ago, dahlia said:

I realize that one of our goals as LDS is to go to the temple. But what if, at least for now, you don't want to become endowed? Can you still get baptized? Should you get baptized? And, if you shouldn't get baptized, how long will wards let you go to church and attend activities if you aren't a baptized member? 

In most religions, no one would care what you did after baptism, but you and I both know that the missionaries, your HT, your VT, and the bishop will not stop asking why you aren't pursuing becoming temple worthy, so there seems to be no escape from having to be up front with this at some point after baptism. I could be wrong. 

Thoughts?

I let my temple recommend expire and in fairness no one cares. 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No updating in the middle of a conversation.  I said so.   Seriously, it makes things rather confusing. 

I really don't understand what the issue is here. I shared an experience I had with my daughter....an approach that I feel in the long run will be more effective in potentially getting the less active girls to return.  But for some reason, I'm getting push back from you.  Help me understand why this bothers you and then perhaps I can see where our communication is failing. 

About the work situation...that may be at your job, but it isn't at mine.  Or at my husband's previous employer.   

Yeah, I don't like the updating either.  But what can we do?

I am glad you called it "push back" because I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying.  But I think it unfairly puts the burden on the wrong party.  The experience with your daughter -- I'll admit that we may "go through the motions" at times.  This doesn't necessarily mean it isn't sincere.  Mormon prayed for his brethren "without faith" because he knew they'd never repent.  But he prayed for them nonetheless.  How was this not sincere?

While I agree that it is always better to do everything with the full faith, charity, and devotion with which we should perform any calling, I'd pose the question: How many of us do that in all things all the time?  If so, my hats off to you.  But don't see how it is considered "selfish" to go through the motions because you feel like it is your duty.  You mentioned it being equivalent to sucking  up to someone to garner a favor.  What favor is there in fellowshipping?  What possible personal gain would I have?

The fact is that we do many things simply because we feel like we're supposed to.  No, that is not ideal.  But I believe it is a necessary first step to eventually growing to do the right thing with full faith and charity.  It is like my tooth brushing analogy again.  As a kid I did it because I was forced to.  Later, because I knew I was supposed to.  Today I brush my teeth because it feels disgusting to not do it.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Guest

[NightSG]

4 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Here is something to think about...why is it that at work, when you dont like your co-workers or boss you still need to be polite and interact with them, its called being cordial and its a very normal thing. At church its called fake fellowshipping and its a bad thing.

Because at work no one pretends to believe in the forced politeness.  It's done because it's (usually) less counterproductive than fistfights in the aisles.